You want to translate, "Subtle and quick to anger", right? It would help to know from what period this comes, because the English is ambiguous. "Subtle" in English can mean "subtle" in a modern sense or "cunning" or "thin, or piercing" in an older sense, while "to anger" may mean "to make angry" or "to become angry". If you can't say, no problem. "Callide quod ut celer ira" isn't right, BTW, I would say, unless you mean "Something cunning/clever that I would be hidden from by anger".Sententiam anglicam vertere vis, nonné? Meliùs si scis quo saecullo venit hoc dictum, quià ambiguum anglicè est. Si dicere non potes, minimè grave.

Salve eXcallidus = acutus = subtilis, indeed.A verb? With "est" you can give it or not (leaving it understood).But "quick to anger" is not "iracundus". You need the adverb with "iracundus".You can also have for iracundus or iratus the following: irritatus, exscerbatus, exasperatus, incensus.

Now, when using irascibilis, this is the equivalent of the English irascible, as an adjective, it can stand alone as et irascibilis? What about citò irascus? I like it because it can convey the meaning of wrathfulness.

Exitao wrote:[1.] So then, callidus et citò iracundus est, should work, yes?[2.] Now, when using irascibilis, this is the equivalent of the English irascible, as an adjective, it can stand alone as et irascibilis? [3.] What about citò irascus? I like it because it can convey the meaning of wrathfulness.

I looked up Lewis & Short, eX, and the definition of "iracundus" fits exactly what you said, and not as I was saying. I was wrong and "iracundus" (classical) seems the equivalent of the later word "irascibilis" (post-classical). Sorry for misleading you, when you were right the whole time about "iracundus". So, "iracundus" as you said, and not "citò iracundus" as I said.